IEEE Transactions on Power Delivety, Vol. 12, No.

1, January 1997

AMPACITY OF CABLES IN SINGLE COVERED TIUYS

B. L. Harshe W. Z. Black
Consumers Power Company George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Jackson, Michigan Georgia InstitMe of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia

ABSTRACT - A mathematical thermal model is developed judgement. Analytical work at San Diego Gas & Electric in
to predict the operating twnperatures of cables in a single 1970 led to a thermal model proposed by Stolpe [1] which
covered tray when there is load diversity in the cable provided the basis for the tunpacities found in the ICEA/NE-
bundle. The model accommodates two different loading MA Standard P54+40 [2], This standard is very conserva-
scenarios - one in which the heat is distributed evenly tive because it assumes that every cable in the tray is loaded
across the cable tray cross section and the second one at the maximum code allowable current. The conservatism
which concentrates the heavily loaded cables along the in Stolpe’s model assures that every cable in” the bundle
centerline, while surrounding them with more lightly operates at a temperature that is less than a selected maxi-
loaded cables. The temperature predictions provided by mum vahte. This work provided the, first basis for establish-
the model are compared to data found in other IEEE ing cable ampacities based on experimental results, however,
papers, data collected in laboratory measurements, and it was limited to open top cable trays. Since the introduction
new data from a four-year study of cable trays in an of P54-440, several stales that are primarily experimental in
operating nuclear plant. Reasons for differences between nature have been used to establish the ampacity of cables in
the field data and the computer results are discussed. The covered trays.
model is used to evaluate the conservatism in the available The best guidance for selecting a derating factor for cables
Codes and Standards. in covered trays comes from two sources. The first is the
A derating factor is introduced that is defined in terms National Electric Code [3], and the second is an IEEE paper
of the ampacity of cables in open-top trays. The derating by Engmann [4]. The National Electric Codo introduces a
factor accounts for the added thermal resistance present derating factor baaed on cable size and severely limits the
when a cover is placed over the cables, trapping a layer of amount of cable that can be placed in a tray. Engmatm [4]
stagnant air on top of the cable mass. The computer suggests a constant derating factor for all size cables and all
model is then used to predict values for the derating fill conditions covered by ICEA/NEMA Standard P54440[2].
factor as a function of cable depth. The detiating factor The problem of selecting an appropriate derating factor for
is shown to be independent of the composition of cables in cables in covered trays is complicated when diversity exists
the tray. The presence of a cover is shown to reduce the in the cable loading. Studies [5] on the effect of dhrerse
ampacity based on an uncovered tray by up to 25 percent loading on the cables in open top trays have shown the large
depending on the depth of the cables in the tray. amount of conservatism in the Code for practical conditions.
Rarely are cable trays loaded in the manner amumed by the
I. INTRODUCTION Code, because the cables in a tray do not simultaneously
carry the maximum code allowable current for an extended
Before 1974, the derating of cables in open-top cable trays period. Typically, the actual electrical load is significantly
was calculated on a case-by-case basis using engineering less than the maximum code allowable value due to conserva-
tive cable sizing practices used by design engineers. There-
fore, the actual temperatures of cables in trays are typically
lower than those predicted by ICEA/NEMA Standard P54-
440. This fact suggc@s that the cables maybe conservatively
96 W 209-7 PWRD A paperrecommendedand approvedby the IEEE operated at current levels above those presently allowed by
Insulated Conductors Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for the Code.
presentation at the 1996 IEEWPES Winter Meeting, January 21-25, 1996,
Currently; there is no consistent guidance that can be
Baltimore, MD. Manuscript submitted March 27, 1995; made available for
printing November 16, 1995. reliably used to address the derating of power cables in
covered cable trays, especially when diversity is present in
the loading of the cables. This paper provides a model that
can be used to calculate derating factors for many cable tray
geometries. The model results are compared with test
measurements provided in other studies and by an extensive

0885-8977/97/$10.00 O 1996 IEEE

test program carried out in an operating power plant. convects heat to the surrounding air.
An energy balance on the cables show that the heat
IL THERMAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT generated in the cable bundle is removed by a combination of
rdation and convection from both the top and bottom
The goal of the ampacity model is to predct the maxhqum surface of the bundle as:
temperature within the cable mass for a given current in each
conductor, a given geometry, and a given ambient tempera- (1)
&iz:R/=qm ‘q~+q~+qcB
ture. The geometry considered and related symbols are ,=1
shown in Fig. 1. The model is based on several assumptions
that simplifi the mathematical formulation and provide a The radiative heat transfer rates from the top and bottom
degree of conservatism in the predicted temperature. These surfaces of the cable mass for a unit length of tray are:
assumptions includtx
1. Steady state conditions exist. Uw (~ - ~)
qm .
2. The tray is horizontal and no other heat sources are I/Ecm + l/eT - 1 (2)
nearby.
3. The tray is placed in a large room with stationary air
surrounding the tray.
4. The sides of the tray are insulated providing for one-
dimensiomd, vertical heat transfer in the cable bundle. and the convective heat transfer rates from the top and bottom
5. The heat transfer from both the top and bottom surfaces of the cable mass for a unit length of the tray are:
surfaces of the cable bundle are equal to the average
value for both surfaces. This assumption produces a qm = hgww U“ - T. ) (4)
condition for which the maximum cable temperature
occurs along the horizontal centerline of the cable
bundle. (5)
The cable bundle temperatures and the temperature of the
tray cover are related to the total current in the bundle and The convective heat transfer coefficient for the air gap
the ambient temperature by the principle of conservation of between the top of the cable bundle and the cover is given by
energy. That is, the heat generated in the cables is conducted [9, pg.434]
through the cable bundle to the surface of the bundle. There
it is convected and radiated from the top and bottom surfaces
of the cable bundle. From the bottom surface the heat is (6)
transferred to the surrounding ambient air. From the top
surface, the heat is convected to the air trapped below the when,
cover and is radiated to the cover that has an unknown Rat B 3284
temperature. The top surface of the cover then radiates and

or, (7)

when,
Tc ew Rat <3284
h top
A I T~ e~ 1
t <hgw and h for the bottom surface of the cable bundle is [9,
pg.433]

-r ~

J4[$(TS-T
-’P
H - .,-------------- /-’””
. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- (8)
h~ = 0.295—

The temperature of the cover is determined by an energy

balance on the cover that yields:

Fig. 1 Cable and Tray Geometry

 5

the cables are functions of the unknown temperatures, the

process of determining g the maximum cable temperature is an
h@(Tc -T_) +hgq(Tc -T,)+
(9) iterative one. The various temperatures are iwsumed and
substituted into the equations to calculate the heat transfer
u(~-~) so from the cover and both the upper and lower surfaces of the
e -I@-if)+
I/eCm + 1/8= - 1 cable bundle. The conservation of energy applied to both the
cable bfidle and the cover is then checked to see if heat
transfer from the bundle matches the heat generated because
The convective coefficient for top surface of the cover is of Joulian heating. If a balance is not achieved, a new set of
given by [9, pg.433] temperatures is assumed and the process repeated until a
bahmce of energy is achieved.

when,
‘@’=
OolMk[$T.-T-)r (lo) After the surface temperature of the cable bundle is deter-
mined and once the distribution of heat generated within
various cables that make up the cable mass is specified,
centerline or maximum bundle temperature can be calculated.
the
the

107< Raw < 10]1 The present codes and standards are based on (the assumption
that all cables in the tray are energized to such a level that
or, the energy is distributed uniformly throughout the bundle
hm = 0.589—
cross-section. Referring, to this distribution w the uniform
J4[*C-T-)F “1)
model, the relationship between the maximuml cable temper-
ature and the surface temperature is given by [1].

and the expression for ~ is given by (6) and (7) depending

on the magnitude of the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh
number in (10) and (11) is given by: The uniform model is unable to account for load diversity
in the cable bundle, because all cables must be loaded to their

&W = 0.0888w3
() + (Tc -Tm)
(12) code allowable limits. However, a simple modification
uniform assumption allows a calculation
to the
of a maximum
temperature that accounts for a diversity of cument loading in
and the Rayleigh number used in (6) and (7) is: the cables. This model, which accounta for load diversity, is
called the layered model. The layered model assumes that

Rut = 0.71t3
()
~ (T$ -Tc)
(13) the most heavily
centerline
loaded cables are placed along the bundle
where they will achieve the i highest
and they are surrounded by the more lightly loaded cables.
temperature

The thermal properties to be used in these expressions Using this assumption, the layered model provides the most
depend on temperature and they can be expressed as [8, conservative cable temperature profile, because the lightly
pg.520] loaded cables act as a blanket that insulates the more heavily
loaded cables along the tray centerline. The layered model,
k = 7.0x10-sT~ + 0.0237 (14) therefore, accounts for load diversity but retains a conserva-
tive approach to ampacity calculations by predicting a
maximum cable temperature profile in the bundle. For the
@ = 1.02x104 ~ - 2.394x106 ~ + 1.t35x10s (15) layered assumption, the relationship between the surface
V2 temperature and the maximum bundle tempemture is [5]

where Tf is the average of the surface temperature and the

ambient air temperature. In (14) and (15), the film tempera-
:“’’R’(%+~.+~~)+ :”’’(4:+~~)+(17 ,7,
ture T~ must be expressed in ‘C which will result in units of
Wfm°C fork and l/°C for #3/v2.
Once the currents in all of the cables are specified, (1) $ni L%’ ~ ‘: (T= - ~y’)
i=l ()
through (14) can be solved simultaneously to determine the
surface temperature of the cable bundle ( T, ) and the The layered model assumes all cables in the bundle are
temperature of the cover ( T. ). Since all of the convective subdivided into one of three categories: heavily loaded,
heat transfer coefficients and the electrical resistances of all
6

moderately loaded, or lightly loaded. The heavily loaded Table 1 Range of Test Condhions
cables number NH and are placed along the bundle centeq
moderately loaded cablea number N. and are placed over the
heavily loaded layer; and finally, the lightly loaded cables
number N~ and are placed on the outside the cable bundle.
For a loosely packed cable array, the depths of the three Tray Tray Depth % of % of
layers that appear in (17) can be determined by the expres- Depth Width of Fill Power ICEA
sions: inches inches inches Cables Allowable
(cm) (cm) (cm) in Ampacity*
Tray

1.2 -3.5 23-73 28-174

The layered model requires that the user select the criteria
(:0) (:: 8) (3 -9)
that distinguishes each cable layer. A logical criterion is
b~ed on the percent of the current in each cable compared to
its code allowable value. For example, a cable energized to *Allowable ampacities for tray fill over 3 inches were
a level of current greater than 60 percent of the code ampacit- extrapolated.
y is categorized as a heavily loaded cable. Similarly, a cable
that carries a current less than 20 percent of its code rating is
classified as a lightly loaded cable. Then all cables that fall bottoms, and all tests measured the temperature rise resulting
between these two levels are placed in the moderately loaded from operating conditions typically experienced in power
layer. The values of 60 percent and 20 percent are arbkary plants. The range of conditions that existed for these covered
in this example, but they are reasonable values nevertheless. cable tray testa is summan “zeal in Table 1.
They require that heavily loaded power cables be packed All of the testa were conducted on cable trays containing a
together where they increase the temperature at the center of mixture of both control cables and 480 volt power cables.
the cable mass to a maximum value. All lightly loaded Since all testing was carried out at an operating nuclear
instrument or control cables or cables that have only inter- power plant, the cables could not be damaged or altered to
mittent loads then fall in the lightly loaded category. These take the temperature measurements. Therefore, the thermo-
form the thermal blanket that fiwther inhibits the flow of heat couples were attached to the jackets of the cables, rather than
to the surface of the cable bundle and gives the layered model drilled through the insulation and attached directly to the
ita conservative nature. conductors. This was a procedure used in previous open top
Since the model assumes one dimensional heat transfer and cable tray investigations. Calculations of the temperature
steady state conditions exist, it should not be used where drop across the insulation of the typical low voltage power
significant variations in geometry or operating conditions cable show that the conductor temperature was practically
exist along the length of the tray or in situations which equal to the jacket temperature, so the measured values were
change with respect to time. The uniform heating model concluded to represent the maximum temperature of the cable
assumes that the individual power conductors are spread to which it was attached. This conclusion is also supported
uniformly across the cable bundle. This model predcta the by earlier investigationa [6].
average temperature of the cable bundle in the tray, but it is All of the test sites were located in rooms that had continu-
not a good model for the situation that exists when heavily ally operating ventilating fans. The thermocouple locations
loaded cables am grouped together. The layered model gives and the cable trays selected were not in the path of air
more accurate results where heavily loaded cables are placed currents caused by the ventilating fans. In addition, thermo-
close to each other. couples were placed in areas where the cables were tightly
packed, reducing vertical movement of air between adjacent
III. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION cables. These locations were specifically selected because the
reduced air flow provides a location of maximum cable
Program Description temperatures.
The objective of the experimental phase of this project was
The testing program to measure the temperatures of cables to veri~ the accuracy of the computer model. The locations
in horizontal, covered cable trays spanned a three year period of the thermocouples were selected so they could be used to
that included both summer and winter conditions. This verify the predictions of both the uniform and layered
investigation was carried out concurrently with a four year program options. To provide both uniform -and layered
testing program that measured temperatures in open top cable temperatures, thermocouples were placed near cables that
trays. All cable trays were ladder type trays with open were lightly loaded and directly on cables that were heavily
 7

loaded. The thermocouples placed dkectly on the heavily measurements carried out at Georgia Tech [1 O]. Three
loaded cables in the cable tray were used to measure the ladder trays were loaded with three dlffererk cable sizes. The
ms.ximum temperature within the cable bundle and to veri~ temperatures from forty thermocouples placed throughout the
the layered temperature prediction of the computer model. cable mass were recorded by an automatic data acquisition
The remainin g thermocouples were scattered throughout the system. Only the data from the bottom tray in the three cable
bundle area and in the air space between the cover and the tray stacked configuration were used. The data resulting
bundle. The thermocouple readings were averaged along from this tray closely simulated a single tray surrounded by
with the layered temperature(s) to obtain a weighted average stagnant ambient air and not heated by the cable trays below
temperature of the cable bundle. The percentage of layered it.
temperatures used to calculate the uniform temperature was
proportional to the percentage of the energized power cable Iv. DISCUSSION OF tiSULTS
area in the cable tray. This uniform temperature was used to General
validate the temperature prediction of the uniform computer
model. To determine the accuracy and conservatism of the
Thermocouples were installed longitudinally on both sides proposed thermal model in predcting temperatures in
of the test location to verify that a negligible axial tempera- realistically operated cable trays, cable temperatures were
ture gradient existed along the cable tray. The ambient air measured in an operating power plant and temperature data
temperature was measured at one inch above and below the were collected from two other studies [4 and lo] as described
cable tray at each test location. The average of these in the previous section . Each cable tray section tested was
measurements was used as the ambient air temperature. then simulated using the model. The predcted temperature
Since the heat generated within the cable bundle was low, the rises are compared with the measured temperature rises and
presence of the tray did not influence the air temperature are shown in Fig. 2. A conservative temperature prediction
measured by the thermocouple above the tray. The differ- falls below the 450 line. Nonconservative results appear
ence between the air temperature above and below the tray above the 450 line. ,’
was always less than 1“C. In Fig. 2, the data points fall below the450 line suggesting
The current was measured in all of the instrumented that the model provides conservative results,, In fact the
heavily loaded power cables in the cable tray. The current of model predicts a maximum temperature that if; often signifi-
the remainin g power cables in the instrumented trays was cantly greater than the measured value. In a few caaes, the
obtained from other sources, such as name plate data. model pre&cts the temperature rise in the cable bundle that
Control cables were assumed to have no current. Sensitivity is approximately three times the value measured by the
studies carried out during the experimental investigation thermocouples. The experimental data by Engmann [4] was
supported this assumption. collected for trays in which cables were evenly loaded to
To simulate a long run of covered tray, tray covers ten feet 90”C ampacities in a laboratory setting. These data points
in length were used. To prevent the flow of cool air into and naturally cluster near the 450 line. This behavior is expected
out of these trays, insulation was inserted into the ends of because the neatly laid cables are heavily loaded and they
each tray test section to block the flow of air. Where cables
entered or exited the tray within the tray test section, a hole
was provided in the tray cover. The hole was blocked with
insulation to prevent air movement.

Data From Other 12rperiments

The experimental data obtained by Engmann [4] were used

to validate the computer model’s prdlctions. Engmann
performed two tests with covered trays containing cables of
a uniform size and equal electrical loading. Of the 15
thermocouples used, three measurements (T5, 7, 9) were
located along the centerline of the cable bundle during each
test. These temperatures were treated as independent
measurements in this investigation since they represented o ~——l————
0 10 Z6SO4O*6O i’omw
independent temperature values within a uniformly heated Cakuiated Temparatura Risa f’C)
cable mass.
The computer predictions of the cable mass temperatures Fig. 2 Measured vs. Calculated Temperatum Comparison
were also compared to a series of covered tray laboratory for Covered Trays
8

provide uniform heat generation across the cable bundle cross energized cables decrease. From this observation it can be
section. Therefore, the conditions during the test more nearly concluded that the load diversity in a realistically loaded
match the assumptions used in the mathematical model. covered tray will produce significantly lower temperatures
than predicted by the existing code [2]. Fig. 3 is similar to
Effect of Load Diversity on Ampaci~ the earlier published curves [5] for uncovered cable tray, but
it includes the added thermal resistance imposed by the
The layered thermal “model can be used to quantify the presence of the tray cover.
influence of diversity on the temperature rise within a
covered cable tray. Fig. 3 shows the temperature rise Antpacity Ratings Eased on a Derating Factor
predicted by the thermal model plotted as a function of the
percent of ICEA code allowable current. This curve assumes A simple way to determine the maximum allowable
a 4“ by 24” covered’ tray that is 75 percent filled (3-Inches) ampacity of cables in covered trays, is to determine the
with #10 AWG cables. When a cable tray contains several required reduction in ampacity that results from the presence
power circuits at various percentages of code allowable of the tray cover. This reduction in ampacity C= hen be
ampacities, it should be assumed that all of the cables are dkectly related to the ampacity values for cables in uncovered
loaded at the worse case level when using Fig. 3. For trays published in existing standards. Using this philosophy,
example, if power circuits account for 25 percent of the total a derating factor can be developed. Once values for the
cable energiti area, and the worse case Ioadmg in one set derating factors are established, the ampacity of cables in a
of the cables is 130 percent of code allowable, then all of the covered tray can then be simply obtained by applying the
power cables should be assumed to operated at 130 percent derating factor to the code allowable ampacity for cables in
of the ICEA code current. The temper@ure rise for a an uncovered tray. Using this approach, the ampacity values
covered tray for this situation would be conservatively published in the present codes, standards, and previous
estimated at 350 C as shown in Fig. 3. ampacity models that have been ustyi reliably for many years
Modeling many trays with varying fill configurations revealed can be retained.
that the cable size and the mix of the cables do not influence The derating factor is simply del%yxi as the ratio of the
the curves generated. Therefore, even though the data in maximum code allowable ampacity of a cable in a covered
Fig. 3 were developed for a tray loaded with a single size tray to that of the same cable in an uncovered tray. This
cable size, the results can be used for a tray that contains a definition assumes that the uncovered and covered trays are
variety of cable sizes. The indlvidurd curves in Fig. 3 plot identically loaded, have reached the same nyximum operating
the results assuming only that proportion of the cable in the temperature, and have experienced the same ambient air
covered tray is energized. All other cables in the tray are temperature. The derating factor is defined as:
assumed to be either deenergized or generate a negligible
amount of heat. The percent energized value is the percent
energized cable area in the tray. The results show that the ‘rlltcowed
temperature rise dramatically decreases as the percent of
Since the two trays are assumed to be loaded with identical
cables, this derating factor can also be expressed in terms of
90
the rate of heat generated in the covered and uncovered trays
100%ENERGIZED
so or the derating factor can be written as:
G 75%ENERGIZEO /
~ 70 .-----__---- /
e

~ —————-
,/
/’

‘F=fmEi
Equation (20) provides a simple way to calculate the
(20)

a .. ... ... ... ... ... .

derating factors by using the results from the computer
f+j~ -..,--’
~,.~,- ampacity model. First, the temperature rise at the centerline
‘m -
of the cable bundle for an uncovered tray installation is
10- related to the total heat generated by the cables. The pro-
, ! gram is then used to calculate the temperature rise as a
25 50 75 100 125 160 175 ml
function of the total heat generated in an identical cable
Percent of Code Allowable Arnpaeity
bundle for an uncovered tray installation. The derating factor
Fig. 3 Effect of Load Diversity on Temperature Rise in can then be derived from the two curves through (20). The
Covered Trays derating factor is the square root of the ratio of total heat
 9

generated in the covered to uncovered cables for a specific

temperature rise. The curves in Fig. 4 for varying cable
depths are independent of the size of the cables placed in the
(Rt)
tray. In other words, the curves for a tray full of 4/0 cables convection
were identical to the curves that result when a tray is filled
with #12 AWG cables. The dominant factor in arriving at
the derating factor using (20) is the heat generated in the
cables. Therefore, the derating factors for all cable sizes can
Tmax
be calculated from a single set of curves as shown in Fig. 4.
The primary factor that influences the derating factor is the
thickness of the air layer between the top of th,e cable mass
and the bottom surface of the tray cover. This conclusion
can be verified by ex amining the removal of the heat from
the cable bundle. A schematic diagram of the thermal circuit
for an uncovered tray is shown in Fig. 5. The equivalent
schematic for a covered tray is shown in Fig. 6. Conserva-
tion of energy requires that the total heat generated in the Fig. 5 Thermal Circuit for Uncovered Tray
cables must be transferred from the upper and lower surfaces
of the cable mass by a combination of radiation and convec- the thermal resistances from the top of the bundle for an open
tion. Ohms’ law, as it applies to a thermal circuit, states that top tray are practically identical to the thermal resistances
the heat transfer is proportioiml to the temperature difference from the top of the cover of a covered tray. The difference
across the thermal resistance and it is inversely proportional in the thermal circuits is a result of the resistance of the
to the resistance. Given this, the derating factor expressed in trapped air layer below the cover when the cables are placed
(20) can be restmctured in terms of the thermal resistances in a covered tray. The thermal resistance of this insulating
shown in Figs. 5 and 6 OK air layer is the primary reason that the allowable ampacity of
cables in a covered tray is always less than that of the same
cable placed in an identically filled, uncoverwi tray.
The thermrd resistance of the entrapped air layer above the
cables is a weak fimction of the thickness of the air layer.
When the air gap is large, (6) is the prevailing ‘equation and
A comparison of the resistance in Figs. 5 and 6 show that the the heat transfer coefficient is independent of the air layer
conductive resistance of the cable mass and both the radiative thickness. For this condition, the derating factor is only a
and convective resistances from the bottom surface of the tray function of the cable depth and not a function of the thickness
are identical for the covered and uncovered trays. Therefore, of the air gap. Once the depth of the cables increases and the
the only factors that influence the derating factor are those thickness of the air layer becomes thin, the mode of heat
that alter the resistance from the top of the bundle. In fact, transfer through the air layer changes from one of convection

1s0
/
/ /
/
G 140 /
<.

1-
81~
i
--y”””’
covered
/
///
//
////

L_Tm
Fig. 4 Development of Derating Factors Fig. 6 Thermal Circuit for Covered Tray
10

to that of conduction. At this point, (7) dominates and What is more important, it will limit the selection of a
improved heat transfer results., For trays with large fill derating factor to one that requires only a knowledge of the
levels, the thickness of the air gap strongly influences the depth of the cables in the tray.
total resistance in the thermal circuit. The thickness of the
air gap can ultirpately improves the derating factor in these V. CONCLUSION
cases, as indicated in (7).
Since the der@g factor is most strongly affected by the The computer model proposed in this paper conservatively
depth of cables and the tray height, it is reasonable to plot the pre&cta cable temperature rise in covered trays. It accounts
derating factors as a function of these two variables. The for diversity in the loading of the cables within the covered
computer model described in the first part of this paper was trays and provides a theoretical justification for cable derating
used to construct curves like the ones shown in Fig. 4 for a factors that are not present in the National Electric Code.
given tray size and cable depth. From these curves the The model confirms that the suggested derating factors from
derating factors were calculated. Fig. 7 shows a composite previous investigators are conservative, and it may be
of the derating factors as a function of cable depth for three permissible to relax them using conservative criteria. The
different tray heights. The curves show that the derating derating factor is shown to be independent of cable size and
factor is not a function of the tray height provided the a conservative value for the derating factor that is a function
thckness of the tir gap above the cables is greater than one- only of the cable depth in the tray is recommended.
half inch (13mm). Once the cable depth approaches the tray
height, however, the derating factor increases because the VL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
thermal resistance of the air layer dramatically decreases (7).
This behavior explains the three, nearly vertical “tails” on the The authors thank the Consumers Power Company System
curves in Fig. 7. Protection Department and the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant
The application of the derating factor to the ampacity of Electrical Maintenance Department, the Electrical Systems
cables in covered trays can be fhrther simplified by ignoring Engineering Department, and the Electrical Design Engi-
the’ influence of the tray height on the derating factor. Since neering Department for their assistance. The authors also
choosing a lower value for the derating factor provides want to thank Carl Fox of the Palisades Configuration
conservative ampacity values, the derating factors suggested Control Project for his work in coordinating the test program;
by the “tails” of the three curves in Fig. 7 can be ignored. Daniel Ugorcak for his extensive technical analysis and
As explained above, these ‘tails” occur only when the cable review; and Jay Blewett for his review in support of. the
depth comes to within.one-half inch of the tray height. Using publication of this document.
the lower extreme of the derating factor curve, a consemative
derating curve based solely on the cable depth can be
established. The result of this is the recommended derating
factor curve’ shown in Fig. 8. Using the derat@g factors in
Pig. 8 will always produce conservative ampacity values.

o s (m ,0 16
0.9 I 1 I I 1 1 1 , 1 1 I (

4 i
a?~, o.7~
o 1 2 4 6 e 7
C~e Oepth (inches) 0able30epth (k+@

Fig. 7 Derating Factors as a Function of Cable Depth for Fig. 8 Recommended Conservative Derating Factors for
3-Inch, 5-Inch, and 7-Inch High Trays Covered Trays as a Function of Cable Depth
 11

VII. REFERENCES Power Company supporting the Palisades Nuclear Power

Plant. He is a registered professional engineer in Ohio and
[1] J. Stolpe, “Ampacities for Cables in Randomly Filled Michigan.
Cable Trays, ” IEEE Paper No. 70 2P 557 PWR.
W. Z. Black received his BS and MS in mechanical engineer-
[2] ICEA/NEMA Ampacities of Cables in Open-Top Cable ing from the University of Illinois, and his PhD in mechani-
Trays, ICEA Publication No. P54-440; NEMA Publica- cal engineering from Purdue University. For the past 28
tion No. WC51, published by NEMA Washington, D. C., years, he has been in the George W Woodruff School of
1986. Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology
where is presently Regent’s Professor and Georgia Power
[3] 1993 National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, August Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He has
14, 1992; Published by the National Fire Protection directed a number of EPRI projects relating to ampacity of
Association. underground cables and overhead conductcx-s. He is on
several IEEE ampacity committees and is a registered
[4] G. Engmann, “Ampacity of Cable in Covered Tray,” professional engineer in Georgia.
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-103, No. 2, pp. 345-352, February 1984.

[5] B.L. Harshe and W.Z. Black, “Ampacity of Cables In NOMENCLATURE

Single Open-Top Cable Trays, ” IEEE Transactions of
Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1733-1740, October ~’ surface area of cable bundle per unit length (m)
1994. d outer diameter of cable (m)
DF derating factor
[6] R. H. Lee, “Ampacities of Multiconductor Cables in g acceleration of gravity (m/see?
T.raYs, ‘r IEEE T-PAS, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp 1051-1056, H total depth of cable bundle (m)
June 1972. h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-OC)
I current (amps)
[7] C. W. Nemeth, et al, “Ampacities of Cables in Trays k thermal conductivity of air (W/m-°C)
with Flrestops, ” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus n number of cables in a subgroup of cables of same size
and Systems, Vol. PAS-1OO, No. 7, pp. 3573-3579, July N total number of cables in tray
1981. q heat transfer rate per unit length of tray (W/m)
R’ A.C. resistance of cable per unit length (ohms/m)
[8] Frank Kreith and William Z. Black, Basic Heat Trans- Ra Rayleigh number
fer, Harper and Row, N. Y., 1980. ~ total thermrd resistance (“C - m/W)
T temperature (“C)
[9] Frank P. Incropera and David P. DeWitt, Fundamentals t thickness of air gap between cables and cover (m)
of Heat and Maas Transfer, 2nd Ed., John Wiley, N. Y., W’ Watts generated within cable bundle per unit length
1986. (W/m)
w cable tray width (m)
[10] William Z. Black, “Cable Tray Ampacity and Cable
Operating Environments”, EPRI NP-7399, Project
2927-6, Final Report, June 1991.

B bottom surface of the cable bundle

C convection
BIBLIOGRAPHY cov cover
f film or average value
Bruce Harshe received a BME in 1969 from Ohio State gap surface between the cable bundle and cover
University and MS in Nuclear Engineering in 1975 from the H value for heavily loaded cables placed iii inner layer of
University of Cincinnati specializing in heat transfer and fluid cable bundle
flow. He has written several technical publications and i counting index
,articles, including the one cited for open top trays. Since L value for lightly loaded cables placed em outer layer of
1975, he has been employed as an engineer by Consumers cable bundle
M value for moderately loaded cables placed in center layer
 12

of cable bundle Greek Svmbols

max maximum or center-line value
R radiation B thermal expansion coefficient of air (l/”C)
,s surface value AT temperature difference, T- - T., (“C)
t value based on thickness of air gap & emissivity
T top surface of the cable bundle P thermal resistivity of the cable bundle including con-
top top surface of cover ductor, insulation and encapsulated air (m-”C/W)
w value based on width of tray u Stefsn-Boltzmann constant (W/m2-K4)
00 ambient air v kinematic viscosity of air (m2/see)
 13

DMcussion a weighted average of the component resistivities, The

component resistivities are air p = 4000 (cm-°C/W),
Vincent T. Morgan (CSIRO Division of Applied Physics, insulation p = 100-300 (cm-°C/W), aluminum p = 0.42 (cm-
LincMeld, N. S.W.;Australia): The authors are to be commended OC/W) and copper p = 0,26 (cm-°C/W). While some
for presenting another careful study of the heating of a bundle of researchers in the past have used an average thermal
cables in a tray. In this case, the presence of the top cover resistivity of 400 (cm-°C/W) for the bundle, we fell that this is
introduces an additionat complexity, because of the variable
a very conservative value and a more appropriate value would
thickness of the air gap below the cover.
be between 100 and 200 (cm-°C/W). The lower value was
determined by running the program and comparing the
Equation (5), for the heat convection from the bottom surface of
the cable mass, assumes that the bottom of the tray is very open. If calculated bundle temperatures with the measured bundle
this is not the case, an additional conduction term for the common temperatures for various values of thermal resistivities. The
area between the bottom of the cable mass and the bottom of the best correlation between the measured temperatures k
tray will be required. covered trays and the computer predicted values were
achieved for resistivity values in the range of 100-200 (cm-
Equation (6), for the convective heat transfer across the air gap ‘c/w).
under the top cover, should be referenced as [9, p. 439, eqn. 9.37].
This equation is derived from measurements of the he convective
We did notice that the neatness of the cables in the tray and
heat transfer in water between parallel horizontal plates [A].
the presence of the cover had a bearing on the appropriate
value for the effective resistively of the bundle. When cables
Equations (8), (10) and (11) were originally proposed in terms of
were neatly arranged in an uncovered tray with very little air
the characteristic length L* = A I P, where A is the surface area of
space between adjacent cables, best-fit values for the effective
the plate and P is its perimetev hence, L* = WL / (2L + 2w), where
L is the length of the plate. When L>> w, L* = w / 2, which is resistivity appeared to be about 200 cm OC/W. When cables
assumed in the paper. were routed more randomly with larger air spaces between
the cables, which is a condition that often occurs in the field,
Will the authors please indicate how the effective thermal the value for the effective resistivity was found to decrease to
conductivity p of the cable bundle in (16) and (17) is determined. approximately 50 to 100 (cm-°C/W).
In the experimental work, what size thermocouples were
employedj and how where they freed to the surface of the cables? When a cover was placed over the tray, the effective
In view of the use of ventilating fans at the test site% it is unlikely resistivity was found to increase, although the value never
that pure natural convection occurred at the top surface of the tray exceeded the conservative value of 400 (cm-°C/W) assumed
and bottom surface of the cable mass.
by the current standard. The increase in effective resistivity
was believed to be the result of restricted air flow between the
An important conclusion from the proposed model is that the size
cables when the cover was in place. This obsemation was
and mix of the cables does not influence the curves shown in l%g.
discussed in [5] in the “Analysis of Data” section. Vertical
3. Has this been tested experimentally? ‘l%e curves in Fig. 7 show
clearly the relative effects of cable depth, tray height and air gap air movement within the cable bundle has been noted by
tilckness on tbe deratirtg factor for a covered tray. previous investigators. Stople [1], for example, indicated that
it was necessary to place a plastic film on the bottom of the
REFERENCE trays to stabilize the thermocouple readings in his test. Since
it is difficult to quan@ the neatness of the cables in the tray,
A. D.Dropkin and E. Somerscales, “Heat Transfer by Natural it is therefore dit%cult to determine the extent to which air
Convection in Liquids Confined by Two Parallel Plates will be able to circulate through the cable bundle. Also since
which are Inclined at Various Angles with Respect to the the neatness of cables in trays can vary along the length of the
Horizontal”, ASME J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 87, pp. 77-84, tray, we felt that the selection of a conservative resistivity of
February 1965. 400 (cm..OC/W) is prudent for our calculations in the paper.
By using a high value of thermal resistivity, the calculated
temperatures will be on the high side and will provide a
Manuscript received February 15, 1996. degree of conservatism that should exist when using a
computer heat transfer model.

B. L. Harshe and W. Z. Black: The testing was performed on a wide range of trays with a
variety of fills consisting of mixtures of power cables of
The thermal model for conduction of heat through the cable varying sizes mixed with control cables. The measured
mass, and the convection and radiation effects that occur from temperatures did verifi that the temperature rise is a function
the exposed surfaces to the ambient air is simplified by a only of the amount of hwat generated in the cables and not a
number of assumptions stated in the paper. The bundle of function of cable size. It was found that unless the cables
cables consisting of conductors, insulating materials and were carrying over 250/. of the code allowable value, the heat
entrapped air between the cables is replaced by a uniform generated in either power cables or instrument cables did not
mass with an equivalent thermal resistivity that approximates significantly affect bundle temperature.
14

Temperatures were measured with 20 AWG thermocouples Several regions of test tray were located in the vicinity of
that were attached to the outer surface of the cables. The circulation fans. No data were collected when these fans were
conductors operated at slightly higher temperatures, but as in operation. Therefore all data shown in the paper were
explained in [5] the temperature drop across the insulation collected when free convection conditions existed.
material has been shown to be rather small. The
thermocouples could not be attached to the conductors The convection coefficient used for the bottom surface of the
because the tests were carried out on cable installed in an tray is based upon heat transfer from a downward facing
operating nuclear plant. The impact of field variables was a horizontal heated plate. The cable mass is assumed to be in
major concern to the investigators, and the way they were good thermal contact with the bottom of the tray and the
addressed was covered in detail in [5]. The testing for this thermal resistance of the thin, metallic tray is neglected.
paper was performed during the same time frame as the Therefore we do not need to include an additional conduction
testing for [5]. If there was any reason to doubt the validity of resistance term in the thermal model.
the data (air movement present, non-steady state heat transfer
present, or the ztemperature monitor was found out of
calibration, for example), the data was discarded. Manuscript received April 17, 1996.